so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem. Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura? It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think

The Protestants have no problem with councils. Most of them will say they accept ecumenical councils 1-4, some of them even more. The Protestants of course have had their own councils- Westminster, Dordrecht, etc. They will say this is just part of church governance and the teaching ministry of the church, and that conciliar pronouncements are only authoritative insofar as their principles can be proven from scripture.

The fact that there is no concept of sola scriptura taught in the Bible is enough to disprove sola scriptura.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem. Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura? It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think

Acts 15 is generally my trump card to both legalists about the Law and Sola Scripturalists alike

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

so I was just finished reading The Holy Scriptures and I noticed something which caught my attention. Acts 15 describes the Council of Jerusalem. Obviously I knew about this council and I knew it was described in Acts but I thought to myself "if the apostles held council and, presumably, taught others to have council (which we know they did historically) than does the Bible disprove sola scriptura? It appears protestants should pay more attention.

anyways, I just thought this was interesting, so what does OC.net think

I recall St. Paul had problems with Christians doing the Sola Scriptural thing and he chastised them for doing so.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the church or hall you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I think you need an extra [ /quote] (with space removed) in there before your new text...

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Sorry my friend but I have to get this straight...

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Why do you attend a church that does not believe in sola scriptura?

« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 04:21:06 AM by Byzantine2008 »

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

We don't make the claim that you attribute to us here. We know where the True Church but is we don't claim that it's impossible to be saved outside of Her. We simply entrust all those outside the Church to the God Who wishes all men to be saved. You seem to have misunderstood the Orthodox position on this as on many other things in your threads here. This often repeated quote from St. Theophan the Recluse seems to me to illustrate the Orthodox view perfectly:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins... I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever."

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

You are an ex-catholic that believes in sola scripture but still attends the catholic church on Sundays because You have realised that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy.

There are many churches and also many non-christian cults who claim themselves to be the 'True Church" outside which there is no salvation.

For example, The RCC and the EOC make this claim.

Additionally the non-Christian Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also make this claim.

Instead of listening to all these claims around us, we should look to the Bible which defines the Body of Christ - That is the Body of Believers. Additionally the Bible does not identify "which denomination" is the Body of Christ.

Lord have mercy

May I inquire what is wrong with my viewpoint.

I have come upon unbelievers (Catholics with dead faith) who attend the Catholic Church... simply...

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

Since you are posting a protestant defence I am going to assume you are a part of protestant denomination group.

You may assume that, but I'm not a Protestant (I do not hold to all Protestant beliefs/ideologies except the five solas). I do not attend a Protestant Church. I'm just a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.

What is the churchyou attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

Sorry I will try again...

What is the church you attend to worship with your fellow believers called?

I'm actually an Ex-Catholic, but I still attend the Catholic Church because I realized that no specific church organization is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is comprised of all who have placed their faith in Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross for salvation.

Let me ask you one thing, does the Eastern Orthodox Church [OFFICIALLY] acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

That all depends on the person, but who can officially say who will attain salvation?

Other EO posters said (on other threads) that the Holy Spirit guides the Eastern Orthodox Church, enabling them to identify who are Saints...etc, therefore the EOC should tell [OFFICIALLY] whether they acknowledge and believe that Roman Catholics and Protestants are [saved] despite considering both of them heretics?

I did not ask a person's opinion. I asked the official view of the EOC as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

Then you should ask a Church official. I suggest your local priest.

Wouldn't it be better if an Orthodox presbyter/priest posts an answer here. I think some presbyters are there on this forum.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Messianic Jews are those Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. It is a blend of Christianity and Judaism together. They affirm the Trinity and that Jesus is God the Son and that salvation is achieved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

This link is a strong Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura against Roman Catholicism. Since I see that the Eastern Orthodox are using similar arguments that are used by RC's here, I feel this link might provide a better insight into the Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura.

Please read the information in that link completely and write any comments in response to that link. I'd like to hear any feedback from the EO.

Quote

The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation.

How can Jesus ever be separated from His own inherent Divine Power? Jesus is ALWAYS God and ALWAYS Man, therefore in every instance in which He does ANYTHING, says ANYTHING, thinks or feels ANYTHING, it is as much a Divine act as it is Human.

Quote

Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.

This is a logical paradox, how can the lowercase church define things which are believed and taught outside of the Scriptures, and then these authors assert that such is not extra-Biblical Tradition? See, these contradictions are the holes in Protestant theology, all the more why we prefer to leave such depth of thinking to the experts, the Fathers of the capital case Church.

Quote

In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.

No, the Tradition and Scriptures mutually fulfill each other, we do not use one to validate the other, as if they were separated or distinct, rather the Tradition and the Scriptures are one and the same, and we hold them with equal veneration.

Quote

Merely to claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so.

Actually it does, because originally in history the Bible simply WAS another aspect of Tradition, and it was only the Protestants who decided on their own authority that such was wrong, but it is an addition to Christian thinking 1600 years removed from the Apostles, a fraudulent and deceptive addition which pushes folks towards heresy, towards rejecting the fullness of God's Word, which is mutually contained in both the Scriptures and the Traditions as a single font of Grace.

Quote

If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God. If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.

Sorry but no, because again the Tradition IS Scripture and the Scripture IS Tradition, they are one and the same thing, how could they then be functionally independent? The circular argument is not by the Church, but by Protestants who claim with no authority, legitimacy, or accuracy, wrongfully suggest that the Tradition is different from the Scriptures. The fallacy is not ours, it is theirs. Further, the Bible's historical origin is within the One Catholic Church, this is simply irrefutable. So if the Catholic Church is NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, then neither is the Bible, and if the Bible IS inspired by the Holy Spirit, then by all logic so too is the Church where the Bible inherently comes from.

Quote

Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.

No, it doesn't

Quote

So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true.

Agreed, but saying it consistently across 2000 years of history DOES make it true, where as just starting up random Protestant churches under the will of some pastor or preacher, where is their authority? Where is their legitimacy? How does some smart Bible reading man suddenly say that his version of House of God or Missionary Baptist suddenly make THAT church somehow true? See it goes both ways, and there are more fallacies supporting the Protestant house of cards than our own

Quote

f so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture. Is it from the Bible?

The New Testament is an anthology of the writings, commentaries, and epistles of the Apostles such as Luke, John, James, Paul, and Peter. The Tradition, including the Patristics, is merely a continuation and perpetuation of this process. The writings of the Fathers are no different than the writings of the Apostles, they are their dynamic successors.

Quote

One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.

Haha, this is sooooo cute! The Bible simply DIDN'T exist until the 3rd and 4th centuries. The Canon as we read it today was ever evolving during the Early Church. Simply stated, the BIBLE orginated SOLELY within the Church, and indeed is ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM THE PROCESS OF THE SACRED TRADITION. The Canon IS Tradition silly Protestant "thinkers" (I say this facetiously because I am not quite sure the author of this article ever actually was thinking in the first place!)

Quote

The link is my defense. It says much more than I can say.

May I have your response to that link?

kx9, sincerely no disrespect intended, maybe you should get your information from more intelligent sources before you walk away from the Holy Church based on some folks high-minded by absurdly inaccurate opinions which quite literally have both no basis in or understanding of actual history?

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 01:50:22 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

The Bible is a PART of Tradition itself. That it was canonized at a certain time (this differs depending on what particular church you are talking about; the Ethiopians have a much broader canon than most, reflecting the unique circumstances in which they received the Bible, whereas the RCs, by contrast, canonized their Bible definitively only in the 15th century or thereabouts, if my memory is correct at the Council of Trent, largely in response to Protestant tampering with the books), that certain books were not included, etc. All of this was decided in council. The Bible did not fall out of the sky one day, complete with table of contents and magical self-interpreting powers. If it were not for the Tradition that you so decry, you would have nothing on which to base your "Bible-believing" views, as the Bible as we know it would not exist. In fact, you and all Protestants should at least venerate St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who gave the first definitive shape to the New Testament canon such as you would recognize it today, in an festal letter in 367 AD. He said that these books were "canonized" (kanonizomena), and whether you are aware of it or not, you are following in the tradition of this great saint of the Church by using those same 27 books that he declared canonical all those centuries ago. You may read the letter in question today, even. Isn't it great that we have all this tradition that has been preserved so that you know where your Bible came from?